On 23/07/2020 09.52, Matthias Klose wrote: > Apparently there was agreement to hide this kind of information, and that's > worse than the original behavior that was acted on. Who will be next? For what > reason? I am not questioning the decision, at least we voted for our > delegates, > so I have to respect that decision even if I would disagree. If you don't > want > to communicate in public, then email committers separately, or create a > private > ML for committers.
python-committers has a public mail archive. Anybody is able to follow python-committers discussions via the public mailing list interface. I understand why the SC is avoiding name calling in public. Barry, multiple core devs have raised a concern now. There is at least one more CoC violation under investigation, which is going to cause even more concern. Would it make sense to disclose more details on the matter in the private area on discuss.python.org? We have an internal forum that is only accessible by core devs and PSF staff. That way the SC can disclose more information in a private post without public name calling and public shaming. Christian _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/MTQ4VWDGMGDIO6VA4ZIVTAYXXSJV2SES/ Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
